The Linacre Quarterly 81 (3) 2014, 199–203
Letter to the editor Objections to Dr. Kinney’s article ANONYMOUS MEDICAL STUDENT The Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University I am writing this message to notify the CMA that I will be cancelling my membership immediately due to its decision to publish, and accept as reasonable, the article by Robert Loyd Kinney III in volume 81 of the Linacre Quarterly. For the past two years of my subscription to the Linacre, I have found the articles in the journal to have been consistently legitimate, scientific, and intriguing. However, after reading the aforementioned article “Homosexual inclinations and passions: A Thomistic theory of the psychogenesis of same-sex attraction disorder,” I am brought to the conclusion that either the evaluative process of the editors has become less rigorous or the Linacre is comfortable in publishing pseudo-scientific material. The dialogue in this article has no place in the Church or in modern society. If the Church wishes to make strides in its public relations, she must remove herself from diagnoses that do not officially exist nor are recognized as legitimate by any psychogical board. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Anonymous medical student
Response ROBERT KINNEY III Franciscan University Weirton, WV, USA
of
© Catholic Medical Association 2014
Steubenville,
I will attempt to respond to each concern individually. “I am brought to the conclusion that either the evaluative process of the editors has become less rigorous or the Linacre is comfortable in publishing pseudoscientific material.” Anonymous is vague and does not give reasons to support the claim. My paper described first a “theory,” which is “a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.” The topic that was explained was the psychogenesis same-sex attraction disorder, and the supporting principles were taken from the Aristotelian-Thomistic tradition. The paper then appealed to anatomy and physiology, which was used as scientific evidence that homosexuality is contrary to the physical aspects of the body. Finally, the paper appealed to Catholic psychology/psychiatry literature on same-sex attraction disorder to show that the theory presented is compatible with current understandings of that disorder. I suggest the reader submit a rebuttal and identify the specific pseudo-scientific material in my article. “The dialogue in this article has no place in the Church or in modern society.” I am not sure what is meant by that statement, but I will guess. I am assuming the letter writer intended “wording” or “rhetoric” in place of “dialogue,” because the article did not contain dialogue. It is DOI 10.1179/0024363914Z.00000000077
200
impossible to know exactly what wording was objectionable; it could have been the in-depth scientific discussion of sexual perversions, but that was simply a discussion of the mis-use of bodily organs from a medical/scientific standpoint. If Anonymous is indeed a medical student, he/she would know by now that medical disorders/diseases are often repugnant. Sexual perversions are physically disordered uses of the human body and the wording in the article displayed the repugnant nature of those actions. I am not sure what is meant by “in the Church or in modern society”; if all explanations of repugnancies were disallowed in “modern society,” healthcare professionals would be censored from speaking many important truths; as a result advancements in medicine would not be made and human beings would be left to suffer. As far as the wording I used having “no place in the Church,” I am left to guess that the reader mis-understands the mission of a lay Catholic healthcare professional. Numbers 897–913 in the Catechism of the Catholic Church provide a good explanation of the Catholic laity. Catholic laity are first and foremost Catholic, and as Catholics they are called to communicate Truth in their particular field. Healthcare professionals are those individuals who undertake the study, diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of human disorders. In order to speak the truth, especially in medicine, one often needs to be as specific as possible. That is the approach I took in the paper, and I admitted in the paper that the material is grotesque. Such language is necessary, and I felt that a medical journal is the proper setting to use medical terminology. Take, for instance, the topic of abortion; there are some people who object to the use of the graphic images or descriptions of aborted children in defending innocent life. I will be the first to admit that those pictures are very difficult to look at. A
The Linacre Quarterly 81 (3) 2014
verbal description of the process of abortion procedures is equally repugnant. However, those pictures and verbal descriptions likely have persuaded at least some of society from considering abortion as a “benign” removal of a piece of flesh to understanding that abortion is the killing of an innocent human being. This parallels (to a certain point) the graphic description of homosexual acts; homosexuality is not a benign “normal variation of human sexual orientation,” and a graphic description of human anatomy and physiology assists one in arriving at that conclusion. In fact, an accurate critique of my article should mention that I forgot a few major anatomical and physiological facts, and as a result my description was deficient. I failed to discuss the histology of the ano-rectal area compared to the histology of the vagina. Ano-rectal intercourse almost guarantees damage to the ano-rectal area of the receptive individual, whereas the anatomy and physiology of the vagina and associated areas are suitable for the physical nature of intercourse. Those are established medical facts. According to my research, they appear to be so well-established facts that a physician or medical student would be negligent if they were to deny such facts. Those facts by themselves are significant indicators that homosexual acts (at least between men) are physically disordered. Same-sex attraction disorder’s mentally disordered nature follows from that physical disorderliness. The desire to partake in such activity is a disordered desire. Desires occur at the level of thought; that is, desires occur at the “mental” or “psychological” level, and hence, a habitual or “connatural” desire to perform physically disordered actions (such as the desire to eat plastic or engage in homosexual sex) could be properly labeled a mental disorder, in my opinion. I admit that this could have been explained better in the paper. (For more information on the disordered-nature of
Letter to the editor
same-sex attractions, see Homosexuality and Hope cited below.) “If the Church wishes to make strides in its public relations, she must remove herself from diagnoses that do not officially exist nor are recognized as legitimate by any psychogical [sic] board.” I am not sure if the Church is attempting “to make strides in its public relations.” There will always be difficult teachings for those inside and outside of the Church; in the 1960s, many individuals suggested that the Church erred—and one could suggest those people thought it was an error in “public relations”—when the papal encyclical Humanae vitae reaffirmed the teaching that contraception is intrinsically evil. That encyclical caused uproar inside and outside of the Church, and individuals suggested that the Church should back away from something considered to be “legitimate” and essential medical treatment by many medical associations. Yet, contraception can be linked to a great deal of suffering (physical, psychological, and social), suffering that the Church attempted to prevent in Her unpopular-but-accurate teaching on contraception. The same can be said about the Church’s teaching on same-sex attraction disorder. At the present time it appears to be unpopular but in the end the Church will prove dissenters to be wrong. It should be noted that priests, bishops, and popes do not give medical advice, but there is an overlap between medical disorders and moral disorders; this should not be surprising because both morality and medicine deal with human actions. When the Church says that homosexual inclinations are objectively disordered (Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 2358), She is not necessarily saying that those inclinations are medically disordered. At the same time, some morally disordered actions (and the associated mental desire to perform those actions) are also medically disordered;
201
actions like the removal of a healthy limb and suicide are some examples. Secondly, as far as I am aware, “psychological boards” are not involved with determining whether a mental condition is normal or disordered. Psychological boards regulate and credential psychologists. I am assuming that Anonymous was referring to the psychological “associations” and not psychological boards. In the USA, it is the American Psychiatric Association (and specifically the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders published by the American Psychiatric Association) that has been labeled as the “authoritative” source of determining whether a condition is a mental disorder or normal. They removed the label of “disorder” from homosexuality in the early 1970s, and the American Psychological Association followed suit. If Anonymous is saying that same-sex attraction disorder is not actually a “legitimate” disorder and “does not officially exist” because “the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association said so,” then Anonymous would be guilty of pseudo-science as opposed to me or the Catholic Medical Association. I suggest that Anonymous perform a review of the literature cited as scientific evidence supporting the claim that homosexuality is not a mental disorder (specifically, I recommend reviewing pages 15 and 21–24 of the document by Judith M. Glassgold et al. titled “APA Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation,” and pages 9–11 of the Brief for Amici Curiae, Lawrence v. Texas cited below; the documents cite numerous articles as “empirical evidence” supporting the claim that homosexuality is a normal variant of human sexual orientation). If Anonymous can actually obtain the outdated sources, Anonymous will see that they are full of ambiguities, incorrect assumptions, and absurd conclusions.
202
Anonymous could have also objected to the use of the phrase “same-sex attraction disorder” and claim that the use of “disorder” is imprudent for pastoral reasons. Some would prefer to use “same-sex attraction” instead, and they would remove the negative connotation associated with the word “disorder.” I should note that the use of “disorder” is neither contrary to the Catholic Faith, as the condition itself is labeled as “objectively disordered” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 2358), nor is it contrary to medicine, as it has been shown that same-sex attraction is a desire to perform a physically disordered act, and that desire often has a disordered emotional and/or psychological basis. In my opinion “same-sex attraction” is an ambiguous phrase, and more often than not it is used to denote a positive, normal, and good condition. The American Psychological Association wrote that Same-sex sexual attractions, behavior, and orientations per se are normal and positive variants of human sexuality—in other words, they do not indicate either mental or developmental disorders. (Glassgold and Beckstead 2009, 2)
Thus, those promoting the homosexual agenda use the phrase “same-sex attraction” to denote a normal and good condition, something the Church does not endorse and something the Church should dissociate Herself from. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) wrote that it is important not to depict the homosexual condition as a “neutral or even good” condition. The CDF discussed the distinction between the homosexual act and the inclination in the “Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics” of December 29, 1975. However, in a subsequent document, the CDF noted that In the discussion which followed the publication of the Declaration [Declaration
The Linacre Quarterly 81 (3) 2014
on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics of December 29, 1975], an overly benign interpretation was given to the homosexual condition itself, some going so far as to call it neutral, or even good. Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.
Hence, the CDF did not want the Church’s teaching to be misinterpreted. Using the phrase “same-sex attraction” instead of “same-sex attraction disorder” runs the risk of watering down or spreading an erroneous teaching of the Church from the Faith perspective, and it runs the risk being non-descriptive, ambiguous, or erroneous from a medical standpoint. It is necessary to separate the “normal and positive variant of human sexuality” fallacy from the objective truth, which is that the condition is morally and medically disordered. Thus, in my opinion, the use of the phrase “same-sex attraction disorder” is both medically and morally appropriate, and in my opinion, its use is necessary to prevent the spread of confusion and error. All of this response is based on the assumption that Anonymous is a genuinely concerned member of the Church rather than an individual expressing anger. If it is indeed a genuine concern, I again ask Anonymous to specify his/her concerns. I welcome criticism, but it is difficult to respond to nonspecific criticism, and it is unnecessary to respond to emotional outbursts.
References Brief for Amici Curiae American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, National Association of Social Workers, and Texas Chapter of the National Association
Letter to the editor
of Social Workers in Support of petitioners, Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003). Catechism of the Catholic Church. 1997. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: United States Catholic Conference, Inc. Catholic Medical Association. Homosexuality and hope. http://www.ewtn.com/library/ ISSUES/homohope.HTM Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. 1986. Letter to the bishops of the Catholic Church on the pastoral care of homosexual persons. No. 3. http://www. vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/
203
cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_1986 1001_homosexual-persons_en.html. Glassgold, J.M., L. Beckstead, J. Drescher, B. Greene, R.L. Miller, R.L. Worthington, and C.W. Anderson. 2009. APA task force on appropriate therapeutic responses to sexual orientation. Report of the task force on appropriate therapeutic responses to sexual orientation. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. New Oxford American Dictionary, The. 2010. Kindle locations 842277–842278. Kindle Edition. s.v. “theory.” Oxford University Press.
Letter to the editor Objections to Dr. Kinney’s article ANONYMOUS MEDICAL STUDENT The Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University I am writing this message to notify the CMA that I will be cancelling my membership immediately due to its decision to publish, and accept as reasonable, the article by Robert Loyd Kinney III in volume 81 of the Linacre Quarterly. For the past two years of my subscription to the Linacre, I have found the articles in the journal to have been consistently legitimate, scientific, and intriguing. However, after reading the aforementioned article “Homosexual inclinations and passions: A Thomistic theory of the psychogenesis of same-sex attraction disorder,” I am brought to the conclusion that either the evaluative process of the editors has become less rigorous or the Linacre is comfortable in publishing pseudo-scientific material. The dialogue in this article has no place in the Church or in modern society. If the Church wishes to make strides in its public relations, she must remove herself from diagnoses that do not officially exist nor are recognized as legitimate by any psychogical board. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Anonymous medical student
Response ROBERT KINNEY III Franciscan University Weirton, WV, USA
of
© Catholic Medical Association 2014
Steubenville,
I will attempt to respond to each concern individually. “I am brought to the conclusion that either the evaluative process of the editors has become less rigorous or the Linacre is comfortable in publishing pseudoscientific material.” Anonymous is vague and does not give reasons to support the claim. My paper described first a “theory,” which is “a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.” The topic that was explained was the psychogenesis same-sex attraction disorder, and the supporting principles were taken from the Aristotelian-Thomistic tradition. The paper then appealed to anatomy and physiology, which was used as scientific evidence that homosexuality is contrary to the physical aspects of the body. Finally, the paper appealed to Catholic psychology/psychiatry literature on same-sex attraction disorder to show that the theory presented is compatible with current understandings of that disorder. I suggest the reader submit a rebuttal and identify the specific pseudo-scientific material in my article. “The dialogue in this article has no place in the Church or in modern society.” I am not sure what is meant by that statement, but I will guess. I am assuming the letter writer intended “wording” or “rhetoric” in place of “dialogue,” because the article did not contain dialogue. It is DOI 10.1179/0024363914Z.00000000077
200
impossible to know exactly what wording was objectionable; it could have been the in-depth scientific discussion of sexual perversions, but that was simply a discussion of the mis-use of bodily organs from a medical/scientific standpoint. If Anonymous is indeed a medical student, he/she would know by now that medical disorders/diseases are often repugnant. Sexual perversions are physically disordered uses of the human body and the wording in the article displayed the repugnant nature of those actions. I am not sure what is meant by “in the Church or in modern society”; if all explanations of repugnancies were disallowed in “modern society,” healthcare professionals would be censored from speaking many important truths; as a result advancements in medicine would not be made and human beings would be left to suffer. As far as the wording I used having “no place in the Church,” I am left to guess that the reader mis-understands the mission of a lay Catholic healthcare professional. Numbers 897–913 in the Catechism of the Catholic Church provide a good explanation of the Catholic laity. Catholic laity are first and foremost Catholic, and as Catholics they are called to communicate Truth in their particular field. Healthcare professionals are those individuals who undertake the study, diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of human disorders. In order to speak the truth, especially in medicine, one often needs to be as specific as possible. That is the approach I took in the paper, and I admitted in the paper that the material is grotesque. Such language is necessary, and I felt that a medical journal is the proper setting to use medical terminology. Take, for instance, the topic of abortion; there are some people who object to the use of the graphic images or descriptions of aborted children in defending innocent life. I will be the first to admit that those pictures are very difficult to look at. A
The Linacre Quarterly 81 (3) 2014
verbal description of the process of abortion procedures is equally repugnant. However, those pictures and verbal descriptions likely have persuaded at least some of society from considering abortion as a “benign” removal of a piece of flesh to understanding that abortion is the killing of an innocent human being. This parallels (to a certain point) the graphic description of homosexual acts; homosexuality is not a benign “normal variation of human sexual orientation,” and a graphic description of human anatomy and physiology assists one in arriving at that conclusion. In fact, an accurate critique of my article should mention that I forgot a few major anatomical and physiological facts, and as a result my description was deficient. I failed to discuss the histology of the ano-rectal area compared to the histology of the vagina. Ano-rectal intercourse almost guarantees damage to the ano-rectal area of the receptive individual, whereas the anatomy and physiology of the vagina and associated areas are suitable for the physical nature of intercourse. Those are established medical facts. According to my research, they appear to be so well-established facts that a physician or medical student would be negligent if they were to deny such facts. Those facts by themselves are significant indicators that homosexual acts (at least between men) are physically disordered. Same-sex attraction disorder’s mentally disordered nature follows from that physical disorderliness. The desire to partake in such activity is a disordered desire. Desires occur at the level of thought; that is, desires occur at the “mental” or “psychological” level, and hence, a habitual or “connatural” desire to perform physically disordered actions (such as the desire to eat plastic or engage in homosexual sex) could be properly labeled a mental disorder, in my opinion. I admit that this could have been explained better in the paper. (For more information on the disordered-nature of
Letter to the editor
same-sex attractions, see Homosexuality and Hope cited below.) “If the Church wishes to make strides in its public relations, she must remove herself from diagnoses that do not officially exist nor are recognized as legitimate by any psychogical [sic] board.” I am not sure if the Church is attempting “to make strides in its public relations.” There will always be difficult teachings for those inside and outside of the Church; in the 1960s, many individuals suggested that the Church erred—and one could suggest those people thought it was an error in “public relations”—when the papal encyclical Humanae vitae reaffirmed the teaching that contraception is intrinsically evil. That encyclical caused uproar inside and outside of the Church, and individuals suggested that the Church should back away from something considered to be “legitimate” and essential medical treatment by many medical associations. Yet, contraception can be linked to a great deal of suffering (physical, psychological, and social), suffering that the Church attempted to prevent in Her unpopular-but-accurate teaching on contraception. The same can be said about the Church’s teaching on same-sex attraction disorder. At the present time it appears to be unpopular but in the end the Church will prove dissenters to be wrong. It should be noted that priests, bishops, and popes do not give medical advice, but there is an overlap between medical disorders and moral disorders; this should not be surprising because both morality and medicine deal with human actions. When the Church says that homosexual inclinations are objectively disordered (Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 2358), She is not necessarily saying that those inclinations are medically disordered. At the same time, some morally disordered actions (and the associated mental desire to perform those actions) are also medically disordered;
201
actions like the removal of a healthy limb and suicide are some examples. Secondly, as far as I am aware, “psychological boards” are not involved with determining whether a mental condition is normal or disordered. Psychological boards regulate and credential psychologists. I am assuming that Anonymous was referring to the psychological “associations” and not psychological boards. In the USA, it is the American Psychiatric Association (and specifically the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders published by the American Psychiatric Association) that has been labeled as the “authoritative” source of determining whether a condition is a mental disorder or normal. They removed the label of “disorder” from homosexuality in the early 1970s, and the American Psychological Association followed suit. If Anonymous is saying that same-sex attraction disorder is not actually a “legitimate” disorder and “does not officially exist” because “the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association said so,” then Anonymous would be guilty of pseudo-science as opposed to me or the Catholic Medical Association. I suggest that Anonymous perform a review of the literature cited as scientific evidence supporting the claim that homosexuality is not a mental disorder (specifically, I recommend reviewing pages 15 and 21–24 of the document by Judith M. Glassgold et al. titled “APA Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation,” and pages 9–11 of the Brief for Amici Curiae, Lawrence v. Texas cited below; the documents cite numerous articles as “empirical evidence” supporting the claim that homosexuality is a normal variant of human sexual orientation). If Anonymous can actually obtain the outdated sources, Anonymous will see that they are full of ambiguities, incorrect assumptions, and absurd conclusions.
202
Anonymous could have also objected to the use of the phrase “same-sex attraction disorder” and claim that the use of “disorder” is imprudent for pastoral reasons. Some would prefer to use “same-sex attraction” instead, and they would remove the negative connotation associated with the word “disorder.” I should note that the use of “disorder” is neither contrary to the Catholic Faith, as the condition itself is labeled as “objectively disordered” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 2358), nor is it contrary to medicine, as it has been shown that same-sex attraction is a desire to perform a physically disordered act, and that desire often has a disordered emotional and/or psychological basis. In my opinion “same-sex attraction” is an ambiguous phrase, and more often than not it is used to denote a positive, normal, and good condition. The American Psychological Association wrote that Same-sex sexual attractions, behavior, and orientations per se are normal and positive variants of human sexuality—in other words, they do not indicate either mental or developmental disorders. (Glassgold and Beckstead 2009, 2)
Thus, those promoting the homosexual agenda use the phrase “same-sex attraction” to denote a normal and good condition, something the Church does not endorse and something the Church should dissociate Herself from. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) wrote that it is important not to depict the homosexual condition as a “neutral or even good” condition. The CDF discussed the distinction between the homosexual act and the inclination in the “Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics” of December 29, 1975. However, in a subsequent document, the CDF noted that In the discussion which followed the publication of the Declaration [Declaration
The Linacre Quarterly 81 (3) 2014
on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics of December 29, 1975], an overly benign interpretation was given to the homosexual condition itself, some going so far as to call it neutral, or even good. Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.
Hence, the CDF did not want the Church’s teaching to be misinterpreted. Using the phrase “same-sex attraction” instead of “same-sex attraction disorder” runs the risk of watering down or spreading an erroneous teaching of the Church from the Faith perspective, and it runs the risk being non-descriptive, ambiguous, or erroneous from a medical standpoint. It is necessary to separate the “normal and positive variant of human sexuality” fallacy from the objective truth, which is that the condition is morally and medically disordered. Thus, in my opinion, the use of the phrase “same-sex attraction disorder” is both medically and morally appropriate, and in my opinion, its use is necessary to prevent the spread of confusion and error. All of this response is based on the assumption that Anonymous is a genuinely concerned member of the Church rather than an individual expressing anger. If it is indeed a genuine concern, I again ask Anonymous to specify his/her concerns. I welcome criticism, but it is difficult to respond to nonspecific criticism, and it is unnecessary to respond to emotional outbursts.
References Brief for Amici Curiae American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, National Association of Social Workers, and Texas Chapter of the National Association
Letter to the editor
of Social Workers in Support of petitioners, Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003). Catechism of the Catholic Church. 1997. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: United States Catholic Conference, Inc. Catholic Medical Association. Homosexuality and hope. http://www.ewtn.com/library/ ISSUES/homohope.HTM Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. 1986. Letter to the bishops of the Catholic Church on the pastoral care of homosexual persons. No. 3. http://www. vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/
203
cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_1986 1001_homosexual-persons_en.html. Glassgold, J.M., L. Beckstead, J. Drescher, B. Greene, R.L. Miller, R.L. Worthington, and C.W. Anderson. 2009. APA task force on appropriate therapeutic responses to sexual orientation. Report of the task force on appropriate therapeutic responses to sexual orientation. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. New Oxford American Dictionary, The. 2010. Kindle locations 842277–842278. Kindle Edition. s.v. “theory.” Oxford University Press.
